Adam D. Skrzecz

I'll research this attorney before writing the summary.

Specialty / focus. Skrzecz's trackable patent work is in software and consumer-electronics technologies rather than pharma, mechanical, or standards-based (e.g., Wi-Fi/SEP) litigation. His one tracked appearance, Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc., concerns real-time, synchronized "co-browsing" technology — U.S. Patent Nos. 9,485,448 and 9,185,145 and related family members covering sharable browsing sessions administered by a synchronization server (see Samesurf, Inc. v. Intuit Inc., Nos. 24-2268, 24-2269 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2026) (nonprecedential)). A Law360 attorney page under the same surname also lists him on Mojo Mobility Inc. v. Samsung Electronics (E.D. Tex. No. 2:22-cv-00398), a wireless (inductive/Qi) charging case, but that matter is not in the authoritative appearance list and the reported trial team was led by other McKool Smith attorneys (S. Pollinger, R. McBeth, S. Baxter).

Side preference. Plaintiff / patent-owner side only. The tracked data show 1 plaintiff-side appearance and zero defendant-side appearances, and both matters surfaced on the name-matched Law360 listing are plaintiff-side representations by McKool Smith — consistent with the firm's plaintiff-oriented IP practice. There is no indication in the available record of work defending operating companies against NPE/PAE assertions.

Firm context and background. Skrzecz is an Associate in McKool Smith's Houston office; no prior firm is identified in public sources, so McKool Smith appears to be his only post-law-school litigation employer. Before joining the firm he clerked for the Hon. Terry R. Means and the Hon. Mark T. Pittman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. He holds a J.D. from the University of North Carolina School of Law (2022) and a B.S., summa cum laude, in Political Science from North Carolina State University (2019). His Texas bar admission date is not confirmed in the sources reviewed; given the 2022 J.D., his practice is early-career.

Notable matters, PTAB, and caveats. The Samesurf/Intuit dispute is the notable matter associated with him. McKool Smith represented Samesurf, the patent owner and district court plaintiff (S.D. Cal. No. 3:22-cv-00412-RSH-DDL, filed March 2022). Intuit's IPRs (IPR2023-00339, -00341, -00342) resulted in the PTAB invalidating two asserted patents as obvious while upholding the '448 patent; the Federal Circuit affirmed on the Rule 36 judgment of April 7, 2026 ('448) and on the merits on May 21, 2026 (the invalidated '145 patent), and the district court then granted Intuit summary judgment of non-infringement of the '448 patent on May 28, 2026, ending the case. Skrzecz is not named among the counsel appearing in the Federal Circuit opinions (argued by A. Block, R. McBeth, A. Ozarkar, S. Pollinger), so his specific role in that litigation is not independently verifiable. Because the tracked caption Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc. corresponds to an IPR-stage proceeding, he has some exposure to PTAB matters, but there is no reliable evidence that he appears regularly before the PTAB; that should be treated as unconfirmed.